Wood v. Kapustin

Eighth Circuit

Wood v. Kapustin

628 F. App'x 458

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 2016

DocketNo. 14-2996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 628 F. App'x 458 (Wood v. Kapustin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wood v. Kapustin, 628 F. App'x 458 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nadezhda Wood appeals after the District Court¹ dismissed her action because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and then denied her motion- to alter or amend the judgment. After careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal was proper. See Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (discussing personal jurisdiction). Additionally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion and noting that such a motion cannot be used to introduce new evidence which could have been offered prior to the entry of judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Nadezhda Wood appeals after the District Court¹ dismissed her action because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and then denied her motion- to alter or amend the judgment. After careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal was proper. See Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (discussing personal jurisdiction). Additionally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion and noting that such a motion cannot be used to introduce new evidence which could have been offered prior to the entry of judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

628 F. App'x 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-kapustin-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack